tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 24, 2015 4:54pm-6:01pm EDT
>> you can see the final five hours of testimony tomorrow. here is a behind-the-scenes look of coverage of the hearing. kaplan.raig i usually cover house and senate floor legislation. and key events on capitol hill. we are committed to covering the hearing gavel to gavel with a to gavel.le -- gavel it was a high profile committee. this was one of the next in the
series we have covered. i got there at 7:00 in the morning. the cruise had put cameras in before and got in places early in the morning for our morning show washington journal to show what was going on even before anyone was getting there. i was starting to tweet out things that were happening outside of the room. i wish i with the camera crews were doing and how the committee was setting up. how we made sure that we were as close as possible getting the key moment when she came into the building and went into an annex room across the hall with her team, her aides and staff. the reporters were assigned desks they could report from. a lot of people said it was their first hearing. see andnteresting to hear from them. i tweeted out a picture that
showed secretary clinton talking house,r members of the and she seemed very pleased. was happy to be leaving the room now that the hearing had concluded. the most interesting thing was the conversations that didn't get captured on camera. one, there were other moments, members of congress talking to each other. we devote gavel to gavel coverage to the house and senate . to those key time hearings we are there, we devote resources of cameras, radio and online to make sure the viewers can completely understand without commentary the entire event.
this is one of those key events covering the hearing with mrs. hillary clinton before the house select committee that a lot of people will remember from years on. from will be seeing more hillary clinton tonight live from des moines, iowa joining bernie sanders and martin o'malley for the democratic party's jefferson jackson dinner. it will get underway at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. we have a preview of the event on washington journal. >> in iowa today, jefferson jackson dinner takes place, a major event for democrats running for the white house. mocrats wanting -- running for the white house. joining us to talk about it is jason noble of "the des moines register." talkingtart out by
about the history of this dinner at what it colleges? guest: sure. this is a long running fundraiser for the democratic party. iowaconnection to the caucuses goes back to the very start of the iowa caucuses. in 1975 the jefferson jackson dinner featured seven presidential candidates including jimmy carter. there was a straw poll taken at that event that was widely reported and is really kind of the first time that the national media took notice of jimmy carter's campaign. this is a tradition going back as far as the caucuses. host: as far as the event itself, what should we expect as we watch tonight? thet: at this point jefferson jackson dinner is really a spectacle. it is an opportunity for the candidates to show off the enthusiasm that they have built up around their campaigns here, the organization and skill in attracting people and getting people out and active in the campaign. i came into the office here in downtown des moines about 45
minutes ago, well before 8:00 a.m. here. hillary clinton already had literally dozens of people out ,n the street waving signs trying to get the attention of passing cars. hours from the doors opening. some of the rice up this morning saying that parades take place. like you mentioned, people in the streets. can you paint the picture for us? guest: sure. hillary clinton -- her campaign will have a rally here with katy perry, the pop star. bill clinton will be at that rally. i know bernie sanders is running a similar event rate we will have a march through downtown des moines. eight years ago the jefferson jackson dinner was really seen as barack obama's breakout moment. he had a concert with john legend and lead this parade from his campaign headquarters into downtown des moines.
it is really just a spectacle. host: so as far as tonight's event, with joe and announcing ,hat he is not going to run with other democratic candidates pulling out of the campaign, what are you watching for tonight as far as what goes on between hillary clinton and bernie sanders? guest: you can tell already that hillary clinton is really trying to have an overwhelming show of , i am thereally say candidate who is best organize. i am the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters. that is obviously to try to blunt the momentum for the hanging around that we have seen from bernie sanders. i anticipate that bernie sanders will also bring big crowds and a lot of enthusiasm. an interesting question will be, could this be the night that martin o'malley breakthrough? people who have been watching this race have been saying, why haven't we seen a moment from martin o'malley yet?
this would be an opportunity to do it if he can pull it off very -- if he can pull it off. jason noble -- link to bring you bill clinton's remarks later in our schedule. now, some of our row to the white house coverage from yesterday with carly fiorina. she hosted a town hall meeting in south carolina where she spoke about the economy, foreign policy, and veterans issues.she also shared her thoughts on thursdays benghazi hearing with hillary clinton. this is about an hour.
[applause] carly fiorina: thank you so much. you are for that introduction and thank you, children, for the pledge of allegiance. you did so well. how many of you watched the benghazi hearing a little bit? mmm. so, of course, hillary clinton continues not to answer the fundamental question which is, since she clearly knew this was a purposeful terrorist attack on the night it was going on, why did she get up the next day and address the american people and talk about the videotape that did not represent our values and why did she continue to talk about that for many days and weeks to come?
in a way, i think those hearings, as admirable a job as trey gowdy did, and he has sent an admirable job reading that effort, your own trey gowdy, he has done it clear that mrs. clinton will not be held accountable for her actions there or elsewhere. until and unless we have a nominee prepared to hold her to account during a general election debate. [applause] maybe some of you have not quite decided if you're ready to support me or not, but everyone of you, i know in your heart of hearts, cannot wait to see the debate hillary clinton. [applause] -- wait to see me debate hillary clinton. [applause] there is only one way that happens, folks. there is only one way that happens.
i do occasionally feel a certain amount of empathy for hillary clinton as i have said publicly on other occasions because there are things that are different about running for president as a woman. for example, early on in my campaign, i was asked on a saturday morning television show, national television, whether i thought the woman's hormones prevent her from serving in the oval office. my answer was, gee, can i think of a single instance in what the man's judgment might have been clouded by his hormones? [laughter] [applause] there are many differences between hillary clinton and i. one of the main ones is this, i will never ask you both because i am a woman, although i am proud to be one. i will ask for your vote and your support and your prayers because i believe i am the most
qualified candidate to win this job and to do this job. [applause] when i watch my candidacy way back in may, nobody gave me a chance. most voters had never heard of me, i never held elected office, nobody gave me a chance. i reminded george stephanopoulos this morning on "good morning america," i was on his show the day i announced, during the august 6 the day, i was not on the main stage. the cnn debate in september, i had to fight my way onto the stage and shannon helped me immensely as the many of you. you are so much. in the debate next week, i am
number four, so i am feeling pretty good. we have come a long way. [applause] the truth is i am still introducing myself to the american people. it is still true that next during that debate, 40% of republican voters did not know who i am and they still do not know i am running for president. allow me to take a moment, if i may, before i talk about what is at stake in the nation to introduce myself of it to you. i will not make this too long, but i must start when i was a little girl. i was in church on a sunday morning, my mother was my sunday school teacher that year, and she looked at me and to set to meet and the rest of for sunday school students, what you are is god's gift to you, what you make of yourself is your gift to god. those words have stayed with me all my life perhaps because of that little girl or a young woman, i do not feel gifted and her words were a promise that i had gifts and a challenge to find and use those gifts. i would learn conservatism at my
dad's knee. i enjoyed my father and i would watch and watch the news every night when he came home from work. i would watch and yell at walter cronkite. -- i would watch him yell at walter can't cut and i would ask why and he would explain. the next morning, i would watch a meal at "the new york times." i would ask him why. from my mother and father, i learned there is not substitute for hard work with dignity and hard work if it is some of excellence and the family brings purpose to our lives and faith brings meaning to our lives. values are what guide your behavior when no one is looking and you don't think anyone will find out. in the end, your reputation and integrity are the most precious assets you have. fast forward, i would start my career in the middle of a deep recession, typing and filing an answering the phones were a nine person real estate firm.
wendy, to make it up to my desk and they worked in that firm and they say, we have been watching you and we think you could do more than type and file. do you want to know what we do? that was my introduction to business, literally. eventually, i would get an mba and go off to work and at&t as an entry-level salesperson. i started in washington, d.c., when at&t is to be the bell system, one million employees, some of you may remember. it was there that i met my husband, frank, about 34 years ago. we have been married over 30 years. he brought with him two little girls, tracy and lori, and they have been an enormous blessing to me for so many reasons, including that i was not able to have children of my own. today, we have two granddaughters, cara and morgan. frank and i have been very blessed. we have that good times and hard times. you heard from shannon that i battled cancer and the love of my family and power of my
faith solving through that, and my faith and my family saw us through the tough times of bearing lori, when she was taken by the demons of addiction. i have been all over the world. i have lived, worked, traveled all over the world. i am keenly aware that it is only in this nation that a young woman can start out the way i did, in the middle of a deep recession typing and filing, go on one day to become the chief executive of what we turned into the largest technology company in the world. and run for the presidency of the united states. that is only possible here. [applause] and i think it is worth asking why. the why. the reason more things are possible here than anywhere else on earth. because i think it is forgetting the why that we go the wrong direction.
and i think our nation is in a pivotal point. my mother was right. everybody has gifts. everyone has potential, far more than they realize. and yet, more things have been more possible for more people here because our founders knew what my mother taught me. our founders knew that everyone has potential, god-given gifts. and in this nation, you have a right -- it was quite a radical idea at the time -- a right to fulfill your potential, the use your gift. it is what they meant when they said the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and the really radical part of their idea, which founded a nation, was that this right to fulfill your potential -- to use your god-given gifts -- comes from god. they cannot be taken away by man or government. [applause]
i started on the journey of considering running for president when iran into a man -- when i ran into a man after speech i had given -- when i ran into a man after speech i had given. he said, you know carly, we don't think of ourselves as a nation of limitless possibilities anymore. that really landed. because when we do not think of ourselves that way, we are losing the core of who we are. we used to know that if something were worth doing, we would figure out how to do it. if it were hard to do, even better. we would pull together and get it done. we just knew that our children and grandchildren's lives were filled with great possibility.
we doubt that now. the truth is we have reached the point where the possibility for americans -- the potential for this great nation -- are being crushed a government that has grown so big, so powerful, so costly, so complicated, so in apt -- so inept. and so corrupt in the political professional class that refuses to do anything about it. [applause] those are really harsh words, ladies and gentlemen. but they are what the majority of americans believe. americans are smart. as citizens, we know that something is wrong now. and we know that it is about much more than replacing a d with an r. the system is not working anymore. 75% of american people think the system is corrupt. 82% now think we have a
professional political class that cares more about the protection of its own power, position, and privilege than getting anything done. and i agree. my fellow citizens, i think it is time to remember that we were intended to be a citizen government and to take our government back. [applause] and we need to take our government back because we have festering problems that never gets solved. people talk a good game collection after collection, -- election after election, and never really gets better. we still are not caring for our veterans, those who have served us. how long have we been talking about tax reform? reducing the size of government? securing the border? how long have we been talking about holding people accountable? the truth is government has gotten bigger and more
complicated, more powerful, more costly, more corrupt every year for 50 years. so you see, it is not just about an r for a d. it is about putting someone in the oval office who is not afraid to challenge the status quo, and who has a track record of producing results in solving problems. [applause] there are a lot of good people who work hard every day. some of them are politicians. politicians are bad people -- are not bad people necessarily, but a lot of politicians are managers, not leaders. there is a big difference between managers and leaders. managers are people who do the best they can within the existing system. they never really challenge the status quo. they operate within the system, even if it is broken. and because they operate within the system, instead of trying to
fix the system, the kind of tinker around the edges of the problems. leaders are different people. they say i am not going to accept a system because it is broken. they understand that it is their job to challenge the status quo. a leader's highest calling always is service to others. it is always to unlock potential and others. and the only way that happens is to actually challenge the status quo, solve problems, reduce results. -- produce results. the difference between management and leadership reminds me of something margaret thatcher once said. i admire her greatly. she once said at a pivotal point in that nation's history, "i am not content to manage the decline of a great nation." ladies and gentlemen, i think we have been managing the decline of this great nation for quite
long enough. [applause] i am prepared, though. with your votes and your support and your prayers, to lead the resurgence of a great nation. [applause] it is worth thinking about, what is it we need to do? we know what we need to do. in order to get our economy growing again, we have to start thinking about small business. and quit protecting big business. the bigger and more powerful government gets, the more powerful the wealthy and well-connected get. it is called crony capitalism. progressives want you to believe that the answer to crony capitalism is more a government but it is the problem with crony capitalism. [applause] we need to get our small businesses and entrepreneurs growing again. we need to quit tangling
people's lives of the interdependence. and we have to encourage, indeed require, that people go to work. because dignity and purpose come from work. [applause] we have to reform the tax code, quit talking about it and do it. 73,000 pages to 3. three is about the limit any individual can understand. ask yourself the question. why is that important question -- quite unimportant? if something is so collocated that you do not understand it, -- why is that important? if something is so collocated that you do not understand it,
what is the percentage you are getting taking advantage of? 100%. unless you have all the resources, you are getting taking advantage of. we know that we actually have to know where your money is being spent. we have to go to some zero-based budgeting. would not that be helpful, to actually know? [applause] ask yourself, how is it possible that every year the federal government spends more money and yet never has enough money to do the important things. yesterday, yesterday, president obama vetoes the national defense authorization act. here is a dangerous time in our world, and basically what he says is, we do not have enough money. not for my priority. how is it that we always spend more money and never have enough? it is always spoken for. that is why we have to go to a system where every single dollar has to be justified every single year. the only way you spend less overall and prioritize what you spend. [applause] we have to hold people accountable in government. no one is ever held accountable and government. not mrs. clinton, not be senior executives of the v.a. who permit over 300,000 veterans to die before they receive health care, not the people in the irs to target conservatives.
no one is ever held to account. and we have to move to a system where there are consequences. [applause] and we also know we have to lead in the world. we have to get our economy growing again. we have to cut government down to size and hold it accountable, and we have to lead in the world. which means that not only do we have to take care of our veterans, those who have served us, because when we do not care for them it is a stain on our honor.
but it also means that people feel as though military service is no longer honored and valued. we have a have the strongest military on the planet. everybody has to know it. [applause] and we actually have to send a signal, a really powerful signal, to the world that the united states of america will lead again. [applause] and on day one in the oval office, i will make two phone calls. i will call netanyahu and tell him that we will stand with the state of israel. always. [applause] and the second will be to the supreme leader of iran. who might not take my call. [laughter] but he will get my message. and the message is, new deal. new deal. [applause] until you open every military and every nuclear facility anytime to anywhere inspections, by our people, not yours, we will make it as difficult as possible for you to move money around the global financial system. we can do that. we don't need permission to do that.
and we must do it. because the money, the money is being used to build military capability, nuclear technology, and to sew murder and mayhem throughout the middle east. with those two phone calls, the message will go out around the world loud and clear. the united states of america is back in the leadership business. [applause] i am going to finish appear in a minute so i can take your questions. but let me close by saying this, ladies and gentlemen, we must win in 2016. [applause]
so think carefully about who can win. i have been tested. and i will not falter, and i will not shrink from this fight, and it will be a fight. but we also have to have somebody to do the job. because the job needs doing now. and to do the job, it requires a leader to understand how the economy works. so we can get going again. [applause] we need a leader to understand how the world works, and who is in the world? and what our allies and adversaries expect and need from us. that is what our government has become -- a giant, bloated, corrupt bureaucracy. we need someone who understands technology. because technology is a tool that can be used to reengage citizens once again. it is a tool i will use. but it is being used against us. and perhaps most importantly of all, we need someone who understands what leadership is.
all of those many years ago when i was a receptionist, i thought the leader -- a leader -- was someone with a big office and a big parking space. a bunch of perks. and they got older and wiser, -- and i got older and wiser, and i realized there were people with big titles were not leading at all. leadership is not about those things. it is not about the size of your office, airplane, ego. it is about challenging the status quo. leadership -- [applause] leadership is about solving problems and producing results. leadership is service to others. and the highest calling of leadership is to unlock potential and others. we now need a leader who will unlock the potential of every
american and of this nation. thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen. [applause] questions? yes, sir. >> thank you for coming here today. you mentioned crony capitalism. i know it is complicated. the farming industry takes away. on the other side, i don't know with respect to, but how do you combat something like crony capitalism?
and also, is it true that you support corporate welfare? carly fiorina: democrats are worse. we have done it, too. the question was about crony capitalism. i hope most of you could hear it. look, i understand really well. a nine person real estate firm cannot understand government. a $90 billion technology company can. we could hire the accountants, the lobbyists. my husband frank and i have been very fortunate. we can hire an accountant. my husband started out as a tow truck driver. that family owned body shop cannot handle it. this is the truth we must tell the american people.
because the progressives want the american people believe that it is they that care about the small and the power less. but in truth, the impact and consequence of every one of their policies is to crush the small and the powerless. why? because when you have some thing is big, complicated, yet to be -- you have to be big and powerful or wealthy and well-connected to deal with it. pick any progressive policy, the more complicated the tax code gets, the more true it is. yes, republicans have been guilty of this. there are a lot of candidates running for president who support subsidies of various kinds. subsidies, tax credits. i don't. i have been very honest. i have gone to iowa and said i know it matters a lot to you to have renewable resources. you want a level playing field between ethanol and oil and gas,
i support that level playing field. but by 2020, the government should be out of the business of setting prices, guaranteeing access to market. whether it is oil, gas, ethanol, sugar, this is not the government's role, so let's give everybody a window to get prepared. but the only way to level the playing field between small and powerless, and big and powerful, is to simplify government dramatically. simplify the tax code, hack through the regulatory thicket and get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers. and that applies to everybody. [applause] this is why challenging the status quo is hard. guess what happens when you decide you are going to go from a 73,000 tax page code to three? when you say the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers? everybody that has benefited from that status quo rushes into protected. it is human nature. it is why change is always hard.
there have been people who benefit from the status quo. companies, politicians, special interests -- every single one of those groups will come in to protect what they have. which is why the power of citizenship is so important. ours was intended to be a citizen government. we cannot take our government back unless, as citizens, we are prepared to participate. let me use your question to say this. i am going to ask you to help me, because it is the only way we are going to actually take a -- take our government back. once a week, i will go into the oval office. the president has a weekly radio address. i'm going to ask you to take out your smartphone. anybody still use a flip phone? [laughter]
you have about 16 months, start shopping. i will go into my office and ask citizens to take out their smartphones. do you think it is important that we know where your money is being spent? to go to somewhere near zero-based budget. press 1 for yes. 2 for no. it is a way to put pressure on this political system. do you think that instead of a 73,000 page tax code, maybe it should be 3. after 50 years of not doing so, should we roll it back? press 1 for yes, 2 for no. by the way, i know that a bunch of you are going to be sitting in their saying "1!" [applause]
i am counting on that. when 75% of the american people think the government is corrupt and 82% think we have acommon g. 75% is a huge majority. that gives us an opportunity to govern differently. why do ithing on this say i am so confident that the political class response to pressure. because we have evidence of it. i mentioned the v.a. scandal 18 months ago. when we learned that veterans were dying before they got an appointment, the bureaucrats were cooking the books so we do not find out. the american people were so outraged that congress reacted.
and they passed a bipartisan bill in three weeks, demonstrating they can do something. in three weeks, passed a bill that said we can fire the top 400 senior executives. by the way, only one person has been fired because the pressure do not stay on. and the horrors just keep coming on. it is a proof point. with concerted effort, the political process will move. so go get your new phone. [laughter] yes, sir? >> you talked about the size of government. [inaudible] with the kinds of bureaucracy, union contracts, how do you do it? carly fiorina: it is hard. so first, we had not undertaken a major reform or rollback of regulation since ronald reagan.
that is how long it has been. it can be done. we have a veritable thicket of things to do. in the next five years, 256,000 baby boomers will retire out of the federal government. i will not replace a single one. it is a window in time to make a big move. [applause] second, if we go to zero-based budgeting and we establish that every dollar has to be justified, every single year, guess what? there will be a lot of dollars that we should not be spending. what does technology permit us to do? it permits us to put every single one of those budgets out for everybody to see. and there will be things that are outrageous.
you need a whole lot less irs agents. if you start to roll back all of the epa regs that this demonstration has put into place, ladies and gentlemen, who are these role makers? they are bureaucrats. they're not elected by anyone. when we roll it back, and we must, when we do a top to bottom review, we need a lot fewer people. and please be assured that one of the first questions i will ask you is, do you think that bill that got past that allowed us to fire the top 400 senior executives of the v.a. for dereliction of duty, do you believe that process ought to apply?
press 1 for yes. 2 for now. we get it done by taking advantage of every single person that retires. by making sure that as we simplify and examine government, that we do not replace. we do it on making sure every time we roll back, the people responsible for administering that are no longer there. and we make sure that there is consequence in the federal government for failure to perform. [applause] >> how do you prioritize to spend money on things that matter? [inaudible] carly fiorina: the question was about priorities. if the goal is to reduce spending but invest properly, what are they?
to strengthen our military and care for those who have already served. let me start by saying that the federal government's priorities need to be those things a are responsible for constitutionally. for example, the federal government is responsible for securing our borders. because if we cannot secure our borders, we cannot protect our sovereignty. [applause] that means a big priority has to be to actually make sure we understand who is coming into this country and who is not -- who should not becoming into this country. we have to put a huge priority on fixing the illegal immigration system, which has contributed to this problem for 50 years. what is another responsibility? roads and bridges. guess what? we never have enough money to fix them, we are always asking taxpayers to pay more. we have aging infrastructure.
i would not do it by saying you have to have a union contract to get the work. that is how the present government does it. education is a hugely important priority to the young lady's question. for 50 years, the department of education has gotten bigger under republicans and democrats alike. in fact, it has deteriorated. we have had goals of these centralized education programs to close the achievement gap between low income and high income children. and that gap is greater now than it was 20 years ago. what can you conclude? that spending money does not have a lot to do with the quality of education.
what does? [applause] what does? we know the answer to this. what are the two most important things in a child's education? a good teacher in the classroom and an involved parent document number, or community -- involved parent, family member, or community member. [applause] we need to have more power and control in the hands of community and family. when we take away choices, we take away their chances. these wonderful children who stood up and gave the pledge of allegiance are at a charter school. the truth is, every parent should have as many choices as possible. chargers, vouchers, parochial, homeschooling. this is an area where we have to have a fight with the other side. because the other side is totally on the wrong side. but they are also robbing too
many children of their chances. democrats are continuing to protect and preserve the status quo of the teachers' union. the result is that too many kids are trapped in failing schools. [applause] common core is a really bad idea. it is a version of crony capitalism. textbook companies helped write it. [applause] it is a standardized bureaucratic program to teach teachers how to teach and students how to learn. the reason i say we have to have this fight is because we believe that every child has god-given gifts. that every child wants to learn. that every child can learn. that a child's opportunity to learn prepares them for possibilities later in life.
sometimes i tell people, progressives actually believe that. but they don't, not if you look at the consequence of the policies. i quote the head of the chicago teachers union who took to the microphone -- and of course the issue of teacher accountability -- she said this. "we cannot be held accountable for performance in our classroom because too many of them are poor and come from broken families." what was she saying? if you come from a broken family or are poor, you cannot learn. that is not what i believe. that is not what you believe. and that is not the united states of america.
[applause] and if we do away with all of these department of education programs and put the money and resources and the choices and the accountability and the power back where it belongs -- and the responsibility and the power back where it belongs, we need a whole lot less people in the department of education. [applause] yes, go ahead. you are trying to hand a mic to this nice lady. >> you spoke about defense, how specifically would you strengthen the u.s. armed forces? carly fiorina: first, let me say that in the defense department, i have advised two secretaries. there is something called the tooth decay ratio. -- the tooth to tail ratio.
tooth, the tip of the scale. tail, the end. we have the worst ratio, not enough at the tip of the spear. not enough in the caboose. too much in the caboose. we have to invest in reform. what does that mean? let me start with the fundamental thing, ladies and gentleman. we must honor, we must value, we must care for, we must listen to the members of our military services. [applause] this administration does not. it is pretty clear. that it is important to understand how terrible the situation is for so many of our armed services who are out there.
i know moms, maybe some of you do too, who have sons and afghanistan. they are not shipping chocolate chip cookies. their shipping blankets, pillows, mres. i was watching a young man graduated from the academy -- the marines. i watched his family. they had that combination of happiness and sadness, of pride and fear. we have to care for those who serve for us. specifically, however, the army battalions -- we need about 36. we need 440 new naval vessels. the air force is in relatively good shape. we need to stand with our allies and stand with our adversaries. we have a plan. there is a priority in which
this has to be done. i have said that i would talk to bebe netanyahu, the supreme leader of iran. i will not talk to vladimir putin. i will not talk to vladimir putin. although i have met him. i will not speak to him until we are in a position of strength. [applause] specifically, one the places i will start is rebuilding the fleet under his nose. rebuilding the defense missile program under his nose in poland. and conducting regulatory military exercises in the baltic states. we must impose no-fly zones in syria because the president of russia cannot tell america when and where to fly. [applause] we have a whole series of allies were asking us for help and support. i just got up phone with the
-- i just got off phone with the foreign minister of australia. japan, the philippines -- all of asked for specific support. technology, intelligence sharing, weaponry in some instances the pushback back on the rising adversary of china. we have a whole set of allies in the middle east you know that isis is evil. but we have denied the most basic request. we have denied the kurds, king abdullah of jordan -- i have known him for a long time. we have denied intelligence sharing. there is a whole set of things that we must do to build up our own military capability, not only to honor those who serve, but to help our allies help us. and they will help us. but they need to see leadership, support, resolve, and strength on the part of the united states of america. [applause]
are you handing the microphone to someone? last question. >> thank you. my name is caitlin. i am a homeschooled student. one of my classes is debate. we got an interesting question this week, i was hoping you could answer it. carly fiorina: uh-oh. caitlin: should the u.s. government financially support countries that persecute
christians? carly fiorina: it is a great question. by the way, the first thing i would say is we must condemn the persecution of christians. and this administration has been silent. [applause] john kerry announces with great fanfare that we are going to accept into this country 100,000 syrian refugees. thanks a lot, john kerry. you will not be around to figure out who these people are. and we do not know how to figure out who they are. this is a dangerous thing. our hearts break when we see the pictures, we cannot simply let people in here if we do not know who they are or what they plan to do. but what is amazing to me -- [applause] what is amazing to me is that this administration has been utterly silent about not just the persecution of christians, the crucifixion of christians, the beheading of christians, the mass exodus throughout the middle east. we cannot be silent. and the short answer, of course, is no. but it is also true that we have influence over some of these
nations. when we say nothing, when we do nothing, we lose all of our influence. so not only will i speak out, but my actions will be consistent with my words. and that is what the world needs to see from the u.s. action that is consistent with words. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate very much you being here this afternoon. it is a beautiful friday afternoon. and you are exercising citizenship by being here. and i hope i can continue to count on your citizenship, as well as your support and your votes and prayers. and i want to close by reminding you of who we are. because i think we remember who we are, we can do everything
that must be done to solve all of our problems. and to heal all of our wounds. it is easy to get discouraged and say the problems are so huge, there is nothing we can do. but the truth is, yes, the problems are huge. but the answers are clear. i said that we have to remember we were intended to be a citizen government. that is true. i also want to remind you of who we are in more detail by asking you to think about two of the most powerful symbols of our democracy. because i think they tell us everything we need to know about who we are. picture in your minds lady liberty and lady justice. lady liberty stands tall and strong, which is the way america must always be. she is clear-eyed and resolute. she does not shield her eyes from the realities or the evils of the world. and yet, she faces out into the world. which is the way america must always face. and she holds her torch high
because she knows she is a begin a beacon of hope in a very troubled world. lady justice holds a sword by her side because she is a fighter. she's a warrior for the values and principles that has made this country great. with that scale, she is reminding us that all of us are equal in the eyes of god. and so all of us must be equal in the eyes of government -- powerful and powerless alike. and she wears a blindfold. and with that blindfold, i think she is reminding us -- he is saying to us -- that it can be true, it must be true. that in this nation, this century it does not matter what you look like. it doesn't matter who you are. it does not matter how you start. it does not matter your circumstances. here in this nation, every american life must be filled with the possibility that comes from their god-given gifts.
and we must be one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> all campaign long. c-span takes you on the road to the white house. at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speeches. and every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. more road to the white house coverage later this evening with presidential candidates hillary clinton, bernie sanders, and martin o'malley. they will be in des moines iowa
or the jefferson, jackson dinner. tweeted earlier today of martin o'malley getting a walk-through of the tenure. -- of the venue. you can see live coverage tonight starting at 9:00 p.m. et. coming up next, a conversation with senator patrick leahy of vermont. he is a special edition to our original landmark cases which explore the human stories and constitutional dramas find -- behind some of the most significant decisions. than a look at data security with marshall black and of tennessee. latest followed by our landmark cases program on the slaughterhouse cases of 1873. >> senator patrick leahy, thank
you for giving us time to talk about landmark supreme court cases. i like to have you talk a little bit about the role of the supreme court in society today. sen. leahy: the supreme court really touch just about everything in america. we have three branches of government. obviously, the president and the congress, but then there is the court. their decisions can decide so much. they decided a presidential election before the ballots were all caps it in ocean v -- in bush vs. gore. changed dramatically the way we find political elections. they had an effect when just recently they basically got into the voting rights act, and some
states took that as a chance to disenfranchise a lot of people. they can dor worse, things that affect the average person far more than what we might do in individual acts of congress. host: there is a continuing debate about whether or not the supreme court overreaches. what is your position? the memberssome of of the supreme court's say we must stick exactly to what the founders said. they tend to make that a flexible rule depending on whether or not it goes with their own feelings. i think it can be a very activist court. that was first seen in marbury versus madison, but they have
been. both good and bad. the have upheld segregation at one point, and then realized what a mistake they made, and years later, ruled it illegal. they have done some very positive things. think of the case of loving versus virginia. it was only a few decades ago that it was illegal for a man and woman of different races to be married in virginia. and actually were arrested for the. it is -- arrested for that. it is inconceivable to america that be the case anymore. vote was a major change. roe versus wade.
we debated abortion for years in this country. the supreme court decided to issue roe v. wade. i mentioned bush versus gore, they decided that election before all the ballots were counted. -- i want us to have a supreme court. i want a supreme court that is butideologically polarized, is more reflective of the country. and above being reflective of the country, they are first and foremost reflective of the laws of the country. host: the people who are critical of the activist supreme court say that it is antidemocratic. that nine judges get to decide or overrule something that the
representative branch of government has decided. is it antidemocratic when they revolt -- review the laws? sen. leahy: in some ways it is. take the voting rights act. that was passed decades ago. we knew just a few years ago, after hundreds and hundreds of hours of debates and hearings, that almost every member of the house of representatives, both parties voted for it, passed virtually unanimously in the united states, again, republicans and democrats signed into law with great pleasure, it is said, by a republican resident. -- republican president. this after months of debate, hundreds of hours of testimony, hearings, and so forth, they had
one hearing in the supreme court, and one of the justices in a cavalier way said, they obviously have not looked at this well enough. worth ofard one hour's argument on it. by 5-4 decision, they overruled it. there was no question that went totally against what the american people wanted, but there was a small subset of the american people that wanted it, and several states used that to immediately pass laws that made it virtually impossible for some of the people in those states to vote. you are the ranking democrat, the most senior democrat on that senate judiciary committee. would you explain the role of the senate judiciary committee
to the supreme court? host: i think ash sen. leahy: i think we should be very careful. what we setead about the first televised supreme court nomination hearing, for sandra day o'connor. i said this, if i had to choose one moment to explain most about the way the american system of government work, it would probably be the way that we choose the justice of the supreme court. it's a moment when all three branches of government join. guardianship of the constitution has to be safely conveyed. then we have to stand there and say, is this man or woman going to be guided by the thatitution, and realize weng these 100 senators,
have to make a decision for 300 million americans. and the decisions we make on a supreme court justice goes on beyond the time most of us will serve. they are lifetime appointments. don't make a mistake, you get a do over. host: so, what are you look for? sen. leahy: i am not as concerned about their philosophy other they are republican or democrat. all will they treat equally? will they really adhere to the constitution? will they respect the laws that have been passed? we have some who won't. i voted against one person nominated for the supreme court, because i had heard, and read a
number of things he had written about the constitution, and the cases. oath, testimony, under he was taking an entirely different position. i asked him, are you having a conscience conversion? i voted against them not because of what he said, but because the inconsistency bothered a greatly. one of the specifics cs things we're looking at, you came to the senate as a prosecutor. one that you don't with was the famous miranda case, and the mack decision under exclusionary law. would you talk about how your work as a prosecutor changed the process?